I'm not confusing anything. All I said was these numbers don't help Obama. He may not have been directly responsible for the QE2 pump, but it happened on his watch. Wrong or right, he'll ultimately be held largely responsible.

And I gotta say the idea that there's some magic unemployment number that will sink President Obama's chances of getting re-elected is nonsense. It's going to be hard no matter what. But it's going to much more difficult, in my opinion, for the GOP nominee to convince the American people that things would have been appreciably better under his/her stewardship. Obama sucks. Obama failed, Obama's a socialist ain't gonna fly gonna fly in a general election.

So I wouldn't hang my hat on every little economic indicator, poll, statistic, or whatever in an attempt to gauge the president's re-election prospects. No doubt the economy will be the main issue, but it's going to be a tough slog either way.

Ok these numbers come from the White House. It cost us around 280,000 for each job they claimed to create but they quit using that term because they know it failed.

WASHINGTON - White House economists say the $821 billion economic stimulus passed early in 2009 is responsible for at least 2.4 million jobs that otherwise would not have existed because of the recession.
A new report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers says the spending and tax breaks in the package are phasing out and their effect on economic growth and hiring is declining.
When passed, the Obama administration said the stimulus would halt rising unemployment at about 8 percent.
Unemployment, however, peaked at 10.1 percent in October of 2009. The White House has said it underestimated the force of the recession.
The administration no longer uses the much maligned phrase "saved or created" jobs. Instead, it says the stimulus "raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been."
(Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

The numbers indeed came from the White House, but the Weekly Standard did the number crunching. Google Bill Kristol if you want to know how much the Weekly Standard loves Obama.

And I gotta say the idea that there's some magic unemployment number that will sink President Obama's chances of getting re-elected is nonsense. It's going to be hard no matter what. But it's going to much more difficult, in my opinion, for the GOP nominee to convince the American people that things would have been appreciably better under his/her stewardship. Obama sucks. Obama failed, Obama's a socialist ain't gonna fly in a general election.

So I wouldn't hang my hat on every little economic indicator, poll, statistic, or whatever in an attempt to gauge the president's re-election prospects. INo doubt the economy will be the main issue, but t's going to be a tough slog either way.

I agree with this.

The real interesting thing coming out of this debt ceiling debate is that spending cuts are coming as a result. A lot of spending cuts, reportedly $1.0 trillion being discussed so far, with the Republicans pushing for more.

When the specifics come out as to what programs are being axed, the Republicans are going to be challenged to defend their stance that the wealthy should not keep certain tax breaks and deductions. Americans don't have a good feel for what $1.0 trillion in cuts really means. When they hear the specifics and realize that programs they rely on are taking a hit, it will then be on the republicans to explain why the rich should keep their hedge fund tax deductions while education funding, for example, has to take a hit.

First, you could run a campaign my friend because that's all the Republicans having been hammering Obama with, and rightfully so. You're also right that the WH oversold the stimulus in that they tried to attach a specific metric to gauge the success or failure of a fiscal policy. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

That said, the election will come down to a choice between candidates not ONLY what the rate of unemployment is. Remember the jokers running for president have their own records to defend, among other things, on the economy. If Obama can come out of the debt negotiations with some sort of compromise/solution, I believe that will help him.

Anyone watch the speech by Big O tonight? Talk about "poll tested words," scare tactics, and bumper sticker rhetoric. Ugh. All he cares about is 2012. Does anyone really have faith in his leadership at this point? Where's the freaking accountability? Can he take responsibility for anything? Still dragging Bush through the mud? For real? Boehner didn't exactly hit a home run either. We're in real trouble.

As far as 2012 goes, Captain Change is losing independents in droves and every time he opens his mouth his poll numbers go down. Makes me chuckle.

Put a damn balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. Continuing to borrow more than we bring in is such a damn embarrassing fail.

It still seems to be me that not enough blame has been pinned on the endless, unwinnable wars and military spending in general. It's the sacred cow of Republicans, so I don't expect any help from them. But I'm not hearing Democrats offering much more than lip service to the idea.

The Iraq war alone has figures that reach the 1 trillion dollar mark. If we don't fundamentally change our approach to foreign policy, stop attacking countries that never did anything to us, and give up this worldwide military empire, the debt and the deficit problems aren't going anywhere.

It still seems to be me that not enough blame has been pinned on the endless, unwinnable wars and military spending in general. It's the sacred cow of Republicans, so I don't expect any help from them. But I'm not hearing Democrats offering much more than lip service to the idea.

The Iraq war alone has figures that reach the 1 trillion dollar mark. If we don't fundamentally change our approach to foreign policy, stop attacking countries that never did anything to us, and give up this worldwide military empire, the debt and the deficit problems aren't going anywhere.

Exactly. You want to win a war now days? Use economic force to play hardball. That's what China has started doing and it has been quite effective. It's time to a) stop jumping into conflicts. Bombs, planes, guns, soldiers, contractors, etc are very expensive. We seem to act as the world police. That needs to stop. We need to invest less in weapons and manpower. The average military grunt may get a low paycheck -- but he costs the taxpayers a bundle and quite honestly, is starting to become less and less necessary.

The above paragraph aren't my own thoughts, that is nearly exactly what my professor, a retired Air Force General, said last semester. I just happen to share them.

Anyone watch the speech by Big O tonight? Talk about "poll tested words," scare tactics, and bumper sticker rhetoric. Ugh. All he cares about is 2012. Does anyone really have faith in his leadership at this point? Where's the freaking accountability? Can he take responsibility for anything? Still dragging Bush through the mud? For real? Boehner didn't exactly hit a home run either. We're in real trouble.

As far as 2012 goes, Captain Change is losing independents in droves and every time he opens his mouth his poll numbers go down. Makes me chuckle.

Put a damn balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. Continuing to borrow more than we bring in is such a damn embarrassing fail.

I'm not sure it's just Obama that's looking bad in the eyes of most.

As for the putting "a damn balanced budget amendment in the Constitution" one has to wonder two things...1) Why didn't the GOP make the proposal while in full command of the country? 2) What is the likelihood of such an amendment passing both houses with just a straight up and down vote (remember, it requires 2/3 vote to pass), the president's desk (veto anyone?), and then being ratified by the 2/3 of the states?

What a fantastic magic show the GOP has put on with their fanciful gimmicks and slight of hands. They must be doing something right if you lot have this much faith in them.

__________________"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

As for the putting "a damn balanced budget amendment in the Constitution" one has to wonder two things...1) Why didn't the GOP make the proposal while in full command of the country? 2) What is the likelihood of such an amendment passing both houses with just a straight up and down vote (remember, it requires 2/3 vote to pass), the president's desk (veto anyone?), and then being ratified by the 2/3 of the states?

What a fantastic magic show the GOP has put on with their fanciful gimmicks and slight of hands. They must be doing something right if you lot have this much faith in them.

Bravo!

Notice I said Boehner didn't exactly hit a home run.

I have pretty much zero faith in either party at this point, which is why I changed my voter registration to independent months ago. Sure I can't vote in primaries now, but whatever.

And as far as a proposed balanced budget amendment being ratified... You're probably right about the difficulty in it getting through. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing for America, which is all I was saying.

I feel Rasmussen polling is an outlier for a few reasons. I rely more on the polling averages (RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls) and not just one poll, because they're all tilted a bit. Quinnipiac is usually on the mark, however, whereas Rasmussen has a tendency to overstate Republican opinion and badly missed the mark in a number of states during the mid-term elections. Given that unemployment is where it is and the country in general is in a sour mood, I don't think the president could ask for any better than 45% approval right now.

Basically his base will be there come 2012: Jews, blacks, hispanics (don't believe the hype) gays, and female voters. So you're talking about Obama and whomever the GOP nominates will be vying for about 20-25% of the electorate. Probably your middle class independent white male. Without offending anyone on the board, I would say someone in Schneed's demographic. I don't know his politics, but he's about as objective as they come. Right now Obama is faring well vs Republicans--not great-- in a few key states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. If he can pluck 2 or 3 of those states, he's going to be pretty hard to beat.

Finally, I would add any poll that has Sarah Palin within striking distance of the front runner Mitt Romney would make me a little suspicious. Not because of it's lack of accuracy, but it just shows you how much people are paying attention. Her candidacy is DOA, even among the most right leaning Republicans. I think once we get on the other side of Labor Day weekend, settle this debt ceiling thing, let Rick Perry flex a little bit, things will get a little more interesting.

Edit: In the spirit of keeping this thread on topic, let's move additional comments to the presidential thread.

The only female votes Obama can count on is black female's. You seem to forget that Obama has pretty much done nothing other then spend 1 trillion dollars to creat no jobs. Also the excitment has gone and they will have trouble getting the voter to turn out. Using your link 75% of Americans say we are headed on the wrong track.

That's just crazy talk, First. I promise you that the voter turnout will be strong. The very first bill Obama signed into law --- the very first one-- was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act benefiting women in the work place. He's appointed two female Supreme Court justices and he continues to fight for women's healthcare reproductive rights. Remember the battle over Planned Parenthood defunding last December? He's been pretty good on that front.